Standing Rules Committee Possible Rules Changes

[givehimaball]

New rule plans could see kick-outs forced to go past 45-metre line and frees retaken if opponents shake goalposts

Colm Keys

December 07 2022 02:30 AM

In a clear sign the GAA wants to cut out negative tactics, its Standing Committee on Playing Rules is looking to trial a kick-out that must clear the 45-metre line in third-level freshers football.

And it also wants to explore the impact that banning a mark, free, or sideline from going backwards, unless it’s taken within an opponents’ 20-metre line, would have.

It follows discussions around playing rules at Central Council on Saturday at which approval was given to trial a number of initiatives. It is not clear which freshers competitions the third-level authorities will give clearance for the trials and what the time-frame is but discussions are taking place.

The desire to assess these proposals makes clear the committee’s interest in trying to create the grounds for more positive football. Just 50pc of kick-outs in 2022 went ‘long’ or what the committee considered beyond the 45-metre line. In 2011 that figure was 86pc.

In 2018, the then Standing Committee on Playing Rules used a number of schools games to trial a kick-out that was required to travel beyond the 45-metre line but the idea was abandoned prior to pre-season games as adverse weather was considered a factor. Meanwhile, Central Council has given its support to close the loophole in the rulebook that doesn’t penalise a player for shaking a goalpost when a free or sideline is being taken.

Dublin goalkeeper Evan Comerford shook a post at the Hill 16 end just as Seán O’Shea’s winning free was curling inside it to advance Kerry to an All-Ireland final. It became apparent that there was no penalty for what Comerford did.

But if it cleared at Congress, and presumably it will, referees will now be able to order a retake of a free (mark or ’45) or a sideline.

A playing rule change to hurling has also been given Central Council approval for Congress whereby all other players, except those contesting a throw-in, must be behind the 45-metre line at the start of a game. Previously, they had to be behind the 65-metre line but more often than not, this was breached.

www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/new-rule-plans-could-see-kick-outs-forced-to-go-past-45-metre-line-and-frees-retaken-if-opponents-shake-goalposts-42200993.html

All kickouts having to go past the 45 metre mark does not need to be trialled because everyone knows that if it's a windy day then lots of keepers won't be able to manage this. On a really windy day what would happen is that no kickout might go past the 45 metre line and all it would do would hand the ball to the opposition and the game would be two halves of backs v forwards.

Also the team defending the kickout would pull all 15 players behind the 45 metre mark so the ball will be kicked out to a very congested area leading to a lot of lottery type contests for possession.

Similar situation with the banning of dead ball kicks going backwards. All it would do is encourage the defending team to pull more players back behind the ball.

I read comments before from a member of the SRC that they wanted to encourage more contests for possession in football and that this was based on hurling which had a far higher of contests for possession. I'm of the opinion that they have take the wrong "learnings" from hurling - people want the game of football sped up as opposed to it becoming some sort of helter skelter random lottery with possession being turned over every five seconds. None of these rules do anything to speed up the game. Most I'd imagine would slow things down if anything - especially the kickouts where you'd be waiting for players to get into position for most kicks and short quick kickouts would be a thing of the past.

The rule about interferring with the goal posts is a no-brainer. I think it should be an automatic red card as well. If it's a situation where time is up in an All-Ireland final in a one-point game I think even if you know the free kick is going to be retaken I'd say it's still worth a chance as you might hope that it might work and the ref/umpires might miss it. Also it might just spook a free-taker and unsettle him for the retaken kick plus it would eat up a fair chunk of the goal. Also it's a massive scummy thing to do and making it an automatic red card would send a message. Just having the ref allow it to be retaken isn't an adequate punishment at all.

Once again you'd wonder about those on the Standing Rules Committee's understanding of the game of football based on what they have come up with here.

[keane]

I don't think there's much issue with kickouts currently. There's a good mix of long and short and the tactical decisions around when to push up vs when to sit back are some of the more interesting parts of the game at the moment.

As always, there's a totally wrongheaded approach to rules where people somehow believe restricting the choices available to the attacking team will somehow make attacking more advantageous. Restricting what you can do with placed balls is another in a long line of stupid ideas of this sort.

As has always been the case, the main issue is with defensive teams being incentivized to have too many players behind the ball, and tactical fouling and slowing down of play being well worth the punishment. For the first problem a solution that would be interesting to try would be forcing teams to line up for kickouts with three players in each line (two in MF) - doesn't necessarily have to be the guys with the correct numbers on their backs and you could time limit it to avoid teams pricking around trying to delay. Could also look at forcing teams to keep X players in each half. Another thing that might reduce the value of the blanket defense would be to limit the number of tacklers to two so guys can't be bottled up as easily. The solution for the second might involve persistent fouling and delaying being punished with 30m frees or something like that.

[horsebox77]

Maybe just try leave the game alone for once....

Why this constant necessity to 'improve'..

[kerrybhoy06]

I agree with you on how unworkable the kick out rule would be, you’d wonder how much people think these things through.

One rule that I call for every time is that refs should be banned from giving 2 yellow cards after an incident- punish the instigator and stop copping out with indecision.

[Annascaultilidie]

Dec 7, 2022 15:14:15 GMT kerrybhoy06 said:

I agree with you on how unworkable the kick out rule would be, you’d wonder how much people think these things through.

One rule that I call for every time is that refs should be banned from giving 2 yellow cards after an incident- punish the instigator and stop copping out with indecision.

It is worse in my opinion to give an innocent player a yellow than to let a guilty one off with a stern word.

Your rule forgets the rare time both players are guilty... but I think a single or no yellow is very often preferable to two yellows.

[kerrybhoy06]

Dec 7, 2022 15:35:09 GMT Annascaultilidie said:

Dec 7, 2022 15:14:15 GMT kerrybhoy06 said:

I agree with you on how unworkable the kick out rule would be, you’d wonder how much people think these things through.

One rule that I call for every time is that refs should be banned from giving 2 yellow cards after an incident- punish the instigator and stop copping out with indecision.

It is worse in my opinion to give an innocent player a yellow than to let a guilty one off with a stern word.

Your rule forgets the rare time both players are guilty... but I think a single or no yellow is very often preferable to two yellows.

It does, to an extent, but there is usually an instigator in a situation and they should be cautioned- the player defending himself should be let off in most instances.

Drives me cracked when you see a player, like Clifford or someone, gettin wrestled to the ground off the ball and then they are fighting off the back to get back up - end result is 2 yellows.

Feck that- book the instigator as the situation has only arisen due to him

[kerrybhoy06]

Dec 7, 2022 19:45:19 GMT ciarraimick said:

The problem with two players wrestling is alot of the time the ref does nt know who the instigator is. In the past everyone blamed the defender but that's not always the case anymore. The ref should receive more help from linesmen and umpires but I do agree with the sentiment of the instigator getting a bigger punishment. On the kickouts I do think something has to be done. Even on a windy day a Goalie does nt kick from the endline anyway so he does nt have to kick it that long anyway. The short kick is skilful and leads to a keep ball and can end up very boring for the neutral. I do think a bit of tweaking is needed. Also the mark should be tweaked too. Marks like Clifford in the final were great but a mark into the chest is ridiculous.

I agree and that’s why I talk about indecision. There’s several officials there who can see what’s happening so they need to be decisive

[diego]

For the kick out beyond the 45, it could work as a rule but there would have to be an allowance for referee interpretation of the goalkeeper's intent. If the ref deems it a legit attempt to get it out past the 45, but it's miskicked or blown back by a gale then play on. I'd like to see it tried out.

[homerj]

Dec 7, 2022 19:46:17 GMT ciarraimick said:

Dec 7, 2022 19:45:19 GMT ciarraimick said:

The problem with two players wrestling is alot of the time the ref does nt know who the instigator is. In the past everyone blamed the defender but that's not always the case anymore. The ref should receive more help from linesmen and umpires but I do agree with the sentiment of the instigator getting a bigger punishment. On the kickouts I do think something has to be done. Even on a windy day a Goalie does nt kick from the endline anyway so he does nt have to kick it that long anyway. The short kick is skilful and leads to a keep ball and can end up very boring for the neutral. I do think a bit of tweaking is needed. Also the mark should be tweaked too. Marks like Clifford in the final were great but a mark into the chest is ridiculous.

I mean the short kickout is not skilful

disagree on this part, having played in goals a bit over the last year or so, the short kick outs are much more skillful than just putting a ball on a T and puming it 60 yards out the pitch.

[onlykerry]

When short kick outs go wrong or are turned over they frequently lead to scores - this is a real risk/reward situation and is a genuine part of the game which should not be interfered with.

I can understand the dislike of the backward free/mark/sideline but limiting it means the advantage gained from such a kick is lessened and the defence can concentrate their efforts in a smaller area.

I would like to see more skill in the mark and I think it should be above shoulder height as a minimum - it also needs tidying up as to when its awarded as there have been several confusing and annoying incidents relating to 1/ a player in a tussle who wins a mark may be slow getting his hand raises and 2/ a player who claims a mark can be called for overcarrying if the ref does not agree. Some refs blow to say mark and leave it to the player to claim it other do not. All a bit messy.

One of my pet hates is one of the "cheats" that has come into the game with forwards grabbing a defenders hand and falling to the ground claiming a free. Aspects of the game that are effectively cheats should be the focus of punishment to dissuade the cheat from being used. Skill should be rewarded and negativity exposed.